Thursday, November 8, 2012

Sierra
Magazine recently asked me to do an update on the status of the hormone
disruptor, BPA, a chemical that is used in the linings of almost all food and
beverage cans. Space was short and I could not explain the science behind what
otherwise is a “he said, they said” back and forth controversy that leaves you
wondering whether there really is a danger. Instead,
here's what you need to understand: The FDA and chemical manufacturers
insist that these chemicals are safe in the low amounts which we ingest
because tests on animals of VERY LARGE amounts do not result in the
breast cancers, changes in mammary glands, lowered sperm counts,
obesity, and behavior changes, found when VERY LOW doses of the
chemicals are tested. Read on to learn more.

If you eat or drink enough of
anything, even water, eventually
it will kill you. That’s the idea behind the adage, “The dose makes the poison,”
a principle that still, in fact,
governs safety decisions about human exposure to radiation, chemicals and
contaminants of all kinds.

But what if that paradigm were
turned on its head? What if tiny, indeed minutely small doses of a chemical
could cause cancer and other health problems that would not occur at larger
doses?

This is what scientists have told
me is the case with hormone-disrupting chemicals including Bisphenol A (BPA), pthalates, atrazine and other
similar chemicals. Now gone from plastic baby and water bottles because of
public pressure on manufacturers, BPA is still used in the lining of almost all
food and beverage cans. Analyses have found that traces of BPA migrate from the
linings into the food we eat.

However, the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration has declined to ban
the substance. Its reason: “standardized toxicity tests” find that the chemical
is safe.

But standardized toxicity tests are
based on the-dose-makes-the-poison principle. And that is exactly the problem
because hormones are very different from other substances.

“At millions of times lower than what toxicologists study,
then you see the harm that is not predicted by just looking at what happens at
a high dose,” said reproductive biologist Dr. Frederick Vom Saal, a professor at
the University of Missouri, Columbia, who has studied BPA extensively. .

“Massive scientific evidence, “ Vom Saal told me in a phone interview, “shows
that hormones operate at staggeringly low doses." In fact,
he says, medical students in their first two weeks learning endocrinology learn that our cells are specially programmed to let in the
miniscule amounts of hormones, like estrogen, that naturally circulate in our bodies, but block larger amounts. "The concept that higher doses
are always worse than low doses comes from an idea from the 1500s," says Vom Saal. "The old-line
toxicologists will not accept that they’ve been ignorant of the last century of
endocrinology.”

As an example of how hormones
operate, Vom Saal cited Tamoxifen, a hormone treatment for hormone-sensitive breast
cancer. “Tamoxifen at high doses inhibits breast cancer growth, but if you let
the dose get too low, it will stimulate breast cancer,” said Vom Saal. “This is
indicated on every bottle of tamoxifen. That is a signature of how hormones
operate.” Tamoxifen is a hormone mimic. (www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Therapy/Fs7_51.pdf

I asked John Rost, chairman of the
North American Metal Packaging Alliance and a Ph.D. in organic chemistry, about
Vom Saal’s statements.

“His perspective is shared by a
vast minority of endocrinologists,” he insisted. “I do believe there is a big
controversy about this low-dose hypothesis, what effect chemicals can have at
low doses. But as a regulated industry, it is important for us to look to the
regulators and see what conclusions they come to about this. That has happened
at the FDA, (and their conclusion) is that current levels of exposure are
safe.”

The linings inside cans prevent the
food and the metal from interacting. Rost explained that many foods are corrosive
to metal, creating pinholes through which microbes can enter food. Tin was
originally used to coat metal cans; then oleoresin came into use. About 35
years ago, said Rost, epoxy became the “gold standard” of can coatings. BPA is
a key ingredient in the epoxy.

“Since the move to epoxy, there has
not been a food-borne illness case arising from the failure of metal
packaging,” he concluded.

However, the effects of hormone
mimics like BPA are totally different from, for example, botulism, whose
contamination of canned food is the telltale swollen can.

Endocrinologists have documented feminizing
effects in fish, amphibians, and reptiles exposed to tiny doses of Atrazine, a very widely used weed-killer, that also
mimics estrogen and has been shown to turn male frogs into females. Even
the FDA saidit had “some concern”about the effects of BPA “on the brains, behavior and prostate glands” of
fetuses, infants and young children.

The hormone mimic pthalates, a
so-called plasticizer, has been found to cause reduced sperm counts, testicular
atrophy and structural abnormalities in the reproductive systems of male test
animals, reports the Environmental Working Group.

Food is a major route of human
exposure to pthalates, according to Sarah Janssen, senior scientist in the
public health program at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), but how it gets there is something of a mystery. “We all
have pthalates in our bodies, but it is not directly added to foods," said Janssen in an interview. "But it is a
contaminant in food processing. It could be from the plastic wrap, or where
it’s stored, or from the tubing” used in milking machines.

It was the NRDC that petitioned the
FDA to ban BPA in food packaging.

The record shows that when it comes
to these chemicals, the FDA is following rather than leading regulatory
changes. Aftermanufacturers eliminated BPA from
baby bottles and sippy cups in response to
public alarm, the FDA followed by codifying their action, banning the chemical’s
use in those products.

Some manufacturers are acting ahead
of the FDA in regard to BPA in food can linings as well. Campbells
announced its intention to phase out BPA in the linings of soup cans, an action
that followed a big drop in sales, according to Bloomberg News. Consumers avoided the soup after the Breast
Cancer Fund tested food products popular with children, including Campbell soup,
and found traces of the chemical. A Campbell’s company spokesperson,
Anthony Sanzio, told me there was no specific timeline set for the change.

Last June, the FDA said it also
intendedto ban BPA from infant
formula cans but no regulations have yet been issued.

Eden Foods switched away from BPAlinings in 1999, putting its organic beans in cans lined with an oleoresinous
c-enamel, a mixture of oil and resin extracted from plants like pine and balsam
fir.Recently it began putting its
tomato products in amber glass jars when it could find no suitable can lining
replacement.

The NRDC’s Janssen said finding
safe replacements is not simple. “Many replacements have not been adequately
tested,” she said.

The big losers if the use of BPA is
curtailed would be some of the world’s largest chemical companies. Dow, Bayer,
and Saudi Basic Industries, owned by the Saudi government are the biggest players in
a market estimated at $2 billion in annual sales.

Vom Saal sees this potential financial
loss as the motive for the lack of action by the FDA. “It’s very political,” he
says. “They (the FDA) are protecting the corporations at the expense of public
health.”

What you can do: Eat fresh or frozen fruits and vegetables, avoid the canned varieties.Fruits and vegetables tend to be acidic, and acid
increases the amount of BPA that leaches from the can lining into the
food. Buy tomato products and juices in glass jars or tetrapacks to
avoid potential BPA contamination. Many soups are now also available in paper/aluminum packages known as
tetrapacks.

About Me

First as the consumer reporter for Newsday and The New York Times and now as a free-lancer, I write about people who have been ripped off or hurt by the system. One story won a George Polk Award for Public Service.
I see myself as standing in for people who’ve been abused, using carefully researched and written articles to expose the truth and equalize their fight.
I quit The Times when it censored my story predicting that the Long Island Lighting Company would go bankrupt trying to build its Shoreham nuclear plant. Soon after, LILCO avoided bankruptcy thanks only to a bail-out by New York's taxpayers.
I co-founded an ad-free women’s consumer website; edited a women’s cancer magazine, and now write for magazines. I have also taught journalism at Hofstra University.
For the past 3 years, I've worn a different hat as a community organizer starting community gardens in Huntington, NY, as a co-founder of the Long Island Community Agriculture Network. Getting my hands in the earth is an antidote to the craziness of politics and public policy.